Don't want to upset the apple cart...................... Zero is fine with 
me....I thought it would leave more players in the draft, and thus allow nthe 
early drafting teams a better shot at the "up and comers"............either way 
is ok with....... the Yankees................

---- [email protected] wrote: 
> I do not agree with some of these  arguments - and I would hate to see a 
> rule changed when it has been good for the  league for a long time - changing 
> limits as to what qualifies a player as NCR or  uncarded would definitely 
> change how managers can/could/should evaluate  players(period).   
>  
> I think the NCR rule is fine as it  stands and furthermore I believe the 
> league rules have other areas that need to  be reviewed and possibly changed 
> before we adjust a good rule.  And I am  not saying this about my team as it 
> stands today - I only have 4 NCRs on my  current roster.  I am saying this 
> for the sake of the league as a  whole.
>  
>  
> In a message dated 9/9/2011 11:37:32 P.M. Central Daylight Time,  
> [email protected] writes:
> 
> actually the term NCR is incorrect I should have said uncarded  players.  
> Since the game gives a card to everyone that plays at all the  NCR is not 
> what is effected but the league calls a card.  As for hurting  bad teams it 
> would do just the reverse as since anyone under the new limits  would count 
> toward the limit of six (which is not the case now) thus keeps  teams from 
> draft players with 1 IP and calling that a card thus can still  draft 6 
> uncarded 
> players.  As for making cuts more  difficult good!  As Don stated that his 
> team was so bad that there  were better players on the cut list than he kept 
> on his roster and  wanted/needed to draft more than the 3 he was allowed to 
> draft in the I stink  draft.  Plus then teams making cuts must decide which 
> he would rather  have (NCR or in my case Johan Santana)!  Again teams that 
> current  uncarded players and have less the the new limits then YES they 
> would have to  decide if they want to keep them or cut them for new one/s.  
> This also  helps the bad teams as they are more NCR for them to choose from 
> and 
> since  they draft way before the good teams they have better chance of 
> getting better  NCR. 
>  
> We already have a limit on the uncarded player it is just being  increased. 
>  You have seen Lou suggesting we increasing it even more and  this is 
> something I have been asked to do long before now I just have not  remembered 
> soon enough to change before now. 
>  
>  
> ROBERT
> 
> ---------- Original Message ----------
> From:  [email protected]
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: Re: New  limits to NCR for 2012 / Jack's 2 cents worth
> Date: Sat, 10 Sep 2011  00:11:56 -0400 (EDT)
> 
> Instead of  putting a minimum usage on NCRs - 
>  
> If changes are needed and league approves the changes as a whole, then I  
> would suggest the league define or redefine NCR as (1) a player with no 
> current card;  or (2) a player that has never been  carded.
>  
> Then I would suggest the league change the maximum number a team can  draft 
> or maintain on a roster.
> For example I would say if we use the definition Never Been  Carded - I 
> would suggest we limit teams to 2 or 3 NCR picks a year  and a maximum of 4 - 
> 6 
> NCR players on a roster at anyone time.
>  
> If we use the No Current Card definition - I would  suggest we allow teams 
> to draft a maximum of 4 NCRs a year and each  team can carry no more 6 - 8  
> NCRs a year. 
>  
> However, changing  the NCR Rule is a dangerous proposition.  The NCR rule 
> is what makes this  league exciting - especially at draft time and to make 
> changes would not only  hurt the league in general but it would reduce the 
> chance of a bad team  could improve itself quickly --- because the manager 
> would not be  allowed to build as large a farm system.  A change of minimum 
> AB 
> or IP  would not only change the draft pool - it would also change each 
> team's roster  - make decisions on keepers/cut more difficult.  Managers 
> would 
> have  to change the way they evaluate players on their current roster based 
> on 
>  their playing time.  I know I am thrilled when my NCR's that are on  my 
> roster finally get the so called "cup of coffee", but under the  potential 
> new 
> proposal they may not change their NCR eligibility.  I  would be opposed to 
> minimum usage playing limits on NCRs,  especially limits that are not 
> agreed to by the league as a  whole. 
>  
>  
>  
>  
>  
> In a message dated 9/9/2011 12:07:00 A.M. Central Daylight Time,  
> [email protected] writes:
> 
> The current rule for NOT being considered a NCR was/is played in 1 game  or 
> pitched 1/3 inn.  However I have be asked for couple years now to up  the 
> limits and I think now is the time to do so.  I havent decided on  the exact 
> # yet but wanted to advise now before trades and plans are made  using the 
> old rule.  At the current time I am leaning toward 10 AB or  IP but I have 
> been asked to make it higher.  I may but havent made up  my mind on exact 
> numbers. 
>  
> I am thinking maybe increase the limit slowly to see what effect if any  on 
> the draft.  EX:  if this allows for more NCR turning into  players for the 
> following year's draft then leave it but if still too many  NCR players are 
> be picked because the limit is too low then increase the  number the follow 
> year.
> 
> 
> ROBERT
> 
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> _Penny Stock Soaring  3000%
> Sign up for Free to find out what  the next 3000% Stock Winner is!
> _ (http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3132/4e699ec7384c02ee0f8st06duc) 
> _PennyStocksUniverse.com_ 
> (http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3132/4e699ec7384c02ee0f8st06duc)   
> -- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to  the Google Groups 
> "NOMBL" group.
> To post to this group, send email to  [email protected].
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to  
> [email protected].
> For more options, visit this group at  
> http://groups.google.com/group/nombl?hl=en.
> 
> 
> -- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google  Groups 
> "NOMBL" group.
> To post to this group, send email to  [email protected].
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to  
> [email protected].
> For more options, visit this group at  
> http://groups.google.com/group/nombl?hl=en.
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> _57-Year-Old Mom  Looks 25
> Mom Reveals $5 Wrinkle Trick  That Has Angered Doctors!
> _ (http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3132/4e6ae97d1fc2a40e559st02duc) 
> _ConsumerLifestyles.org_ 
> (http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3132/4e6ae97d1fc2a40e559st02duc) 
> 
> 
> -- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the  Google Groups 
> "NOMBL" group.
> To post to this group, send email to  [email protected].
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to  
> [email protected].
> For more options, visit this group at  
> http://groups.google.com/group/nombl?hl=en.
> 
> -- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "NOMBL" group.
> To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
> [email protected].
> For more options, visit this group at 
> http://groups.google.com/group/nombl?hl=en.
> 

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"NOMBL" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
[email protected].
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/nombl?hl=en.

Reply via email to